View Full Version : On Property "Rights"
ReclaimPublicSpace
10-04-2009, 06:19 PM
Do people have inalienable property rights? Are you a subscriber to John Locke, who says yes? Or do you take the side of Joseph Prodhoun, who makes a distinction between possessions (things like my food, clothes, entertainment and goods I use for myself) and property (things like land, ideas, and means of production--things that would be of great benefit to the community if they were to be shared)?
How far do property rights go? Is it acceptable to claim "intellectual property?" -Over a song you wrote OR -Over a life-saving patented AIDS miracle drug that only YOU claim the right to produce
Is property "theft?" What about enclosure? Can people ever own ideas or the earth?
I have a right to my lungs, my brain, hands, my body, and by extension things I justly acquire. It is an inalienable right. If society crumbled tomorrow my property would still be mine whether other people chose to respect that or not.
Is property "theft?"
No because the thing is yours, not society's.
DJ Meaty Cheeks
10-04-2009, 07:32 PM
More shit, more problems.
TaxonomicalPissingContest
10-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Personally I think a person should only be entitled to as much property as they can defend with their bare hands.
Struwwelpeter
10-05-2009, 02:22 AM
Property isn't theft; land is an object comprised of atoms just like the XBOX games OP's parents buy for him, if I can acquire video games and decide who plays them and who doesn't I can acquire land and decide who walks on it and who doesn't. Deciding that property is theft because it could be used to benefit society is no different than a Negroid deciding that someone's car is theft since he could use it in a driveby. On the contrary, theft is depriving humans the right own property.
Ambient
10-06-2009, 08:49 AM
Property is a myth, ownership is an illusion.
Property is a myth, ownership is an illusion.
Proofs?
drBOX
10-06-2009, 06:28 PM
things would be much better for everyone if people simply understood the nature of property rights.
things would be much better for everyone if people simply understood the nature of property rights.
Yep. Few people seem to understand the difference between charitable organizations and tax-funded social programs. No amount of sophistry can mask the fact that taxation=force.
FunkyZombie
10-07-2009, 03:57 AM
Proofs?
The fact that property and ownership are ephemeral concepts born solely out of our mortal ape consciousness should be proof enough. Do you think the hypothetical Immortal Machine-Consciousness of the hypothetical Planet X cares a jot about some "inferior" species's concept of property rights?
Proofs?
Yes please give us a mathematical proof for the concept of inalienable property rights. We'll be waiting. Waiting for quite some time I expect. We might as well try to mathematically quantify and prove the existence of the soul while we're at it.
I'm not trying to be harsh or an asshole but the whole concept of inalienable rights is just an exercise in philosophical opinion. Mere opinion that has no weight without force behind it to back it up. Rights have meaning because we give them meaning, often through force. They're like pagan gods, only relevant as long as a society gives them relevance.
The concept of inalienable rights are a sturdy framework that some of us have chosen to build our lives around. They work as a framework and have stood the test of time, however don't be so arrogant or naive as to assume that no other configuration of framework but the one we have chosen can possibly exist.
The only inalienable right anyone has is to make an attempt to influence the physical world through their actions.
Holy crap. Did you just watch another misanthropic greenpeace presentation or something?
The fact
Stop right there.
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred;
The fact that property and ownership are ephemeral concepts born solely out of our mortal ape consciousness should be proof enough.
Fact is an ephemeral concept born solely out of your mortal ape consciousness.
If you object to the use of ephemeral concepts born solely out of mortal ape consciousness, then you reject the use of facts.
Do you think the hypothetical Immortal Machine-Consciousness of the hypothetical Planet X cares a jot about some "inferior" species's concept of property rights?
You're playing god and pointing at the puny humans. I don't care how big the universe is. I'm here on earth and I have inalienable rights.
A statement of awe at some reductionist approach to humans (domesticated ape, glorified primate, decaying sack of organic matter, collection of atoms arranged like a human, a tiny spec on the cosmic scale) isn't a statement of value. What if it doesn't awe me, or phase me? You can go cry about thinking you're a robot elsewhere.
Proofs?
Yes please give us a mathematical proof for the concept of inalienable property rights. We'll be waiting. Waiting for quite some time I expect. We might as well try to mathematically quantify and prove the existence of the soul while we're at it.
locke?
I'm not trying to be harsh or an asshole but the whole concept of inalienable rights is just an exercise in philosophical opinion. Mere opinion that has no weight without force behind it to back it up. Rights have meaning because we give them meaning, often through force. They're like pagan gods, only relevant as long as a society gives them relevance.
Stealing someone's property is bad.
geez, those philosophical opinions sure are worthless :rolleyes:
Right and wrong exist. You can't raise a human being without a conception of right and wrong. You can't deny that your own conscious bugs the fuck out of you if you do wrong all the time. We're hard-wired for it. Either everyone is right(not true), everyone is wrong(is it true that everyone is wrong? Well that includes myself so no), or some are wrong and some are right. From there, we draw up methodologies to determine right behavior from wrong behavior, and exclude amoral preferences "I like vanilla ice cream" from the equation. Property rights wasn't merely an opinion, it was a discovery.
Therefore, screw the idea that it's all just electrical impulses in the brain. I certainly don't give a shit.
An aggregation of humans(society) is still a collection of individual humans. As such, no behavior can be justified for one but not for others. You can't say "society may steal." Well, you can say it, but it doesn't make it right.
The concept of inalienable rights are a sturdy framework that some of us have chosen to build our lives around. They work as a framework and have stood the test of time, however don't be so arrogant or naive as to assume that no other configuration of framework but the one we have chosen can possibly exist.
The only inalienable right anyone has is to make an attempt to influence the physical world through their actions.
It's not arrogant or naive. It's my informed opinion that no proper framework will work that doesn't involve inalienable right to private property.
FunkyZombie
10-07-2009, 03:31 PM
Are you a solipsist?
If you are just tell me now so I can stop butting my head into a wall of ignorance.
No fact is not an ephemeral concept born of my ape brain. Gravity is a fact and it will still be here long after I'm gone. So are all the other physical principles by which this universe exists. The universe exists independently of us, property rights do not.
I'm not playing God. The "robot" was a hypothetical representation of a more powerful force that doesn't play by our rules. A force like the colonizing powers of old that doesn't recognize our so called inalienable right to property. Speaking of an inalienable right to property I see you mentioned Locke in reply to my request for mathematical proof of an inalienable right to property. Well maybe it's just my ignorance but I could find no suck thing and I would appreciate it if you would post this mathematical proof because I was always under the impression that he said our inalienable right to property came from God and not physics.
Right and wrong? They don't enter into the matter. In fact I don't see what bearing they have in the first place as the concepts of right and wrong are far from universal. My conscious bugs the fuck out of me if I do wrong? You don't even know what I consider wrong. I've paid for and supported two abortions in my life that I have no regrets for. I sleep quite soundly with this information rattling around in my brain yet do you think someone who believes abortion is murder would feel so blase about this? Right and wrong are subjective and purely a matter of opinion. Has your concept of right and wrong been consistent throughout your life? I know mine hasn't and I doubt I'm alone in this.
You have an informed opinion that no framework will work that doesn't include an inalienable right to property? Well excuse me while I inform the bulk of human history that it is a failure in Zay's eyes. I'm sure history will care.
Are you a solipsist?
If you are just tell me now so I can stop butting my head into a wall of ignorance.
Nope. But hey you're the one that waltzed in here with the nihilistic/misanthropic mini-rant. There's no practical reason to use mortal ape instead of human for the purposes of this discussion. There's also no point to rendering our abilities, minds, and powers useless in the face of some hypothetical super-smart aliens from planet x. I almost didn't bother replying just because of that.
No fact is not an ephemeral concept born of my ape brain. Gravity is a fact and it will still be here long after I'm gone. So are all the other physical principles by which this universe exists. The universe exists independently of us, property rights do not.
If that's how you feel then why do you reject the use of facts?
Me: Proof that property rights don't exist?
you: The fact that property and ownership are ephemeral concepts born solely out of our mortal ape consciousness should be proof enough.
If you reject property rights solely on the fact that it's born out of mortal ape consciousness, then you reject every other ephemeral concept born solely out of mortal ape consciousness: Language, logic, math, etc.
Reality is still there and it always will be, but it doesn't care that 2+2=4. I certainly can't hold 2+2, or smell it or feel it or whatever. I don't think the universe really cares about it either. Mars doesn't high-five us for it, and the milky way never said thank you.
Theories get called true because they conform to logic, are valid, and accurate. Guess what? That popped out of mortal ape consciousness.
If you want to get really nit-picky and say something dumb like "lawl but language is a certain unique pattern of sound vibrations that we categorize" then consider that your choice to discern things as right and wrong(valid/invalide, true/false) is an ephemeral concept born solely out of mortal ape consciousness.
Hell, why should I believe anything you type? Some conscious mortal ape wrote it :p
I will continue to clobber this dead horse if you continue to try to pass it off as proof. You dismissed everything in my post as "Oh, it's just something humans thought up. The universe doesn't care." I can clarify when you stop using this shitty cop-out.
Then maybe we can go somewhere with this.
In case I wasn't clear enough, not only are you rejecting my definition of property rights, you're rejecting that of every single philosophy and religion and theory there is. Think rights are whatever society says they are? Well, that's just an ephemeral concept born solely out of mortal ape consciousness.
FunkyZombie
10-08-2009, 01:21 AM
I admit I took the wrong tack in presenting my argument to you.
I'll restate it in a clearer less pompous way without the rhetoric.
I object to the concept of inalienable rights in general because I see no evidence to support their existence. If a right were truly inalienable then it could never be violated. The laws of physics are inalienable, they cannot be broken or violated. The rights we commonly consider to be inalienable on the other hand, can be broken and are violated all the time. At best a tyrant's thugs will laugh in your face if you tell them they can't seize your property because you have an inalienable right to it. At worst they'll put you through a wood chipper feet first. If you have to take a moral stand to maintain a philosophical concept then that is all it is. When the Vatican made Galileo recant the Sun didn't begin to orbit the Earth.
Therefore if no rights are truly inalienable, then rights are solely the creation of man. They exist at our whim and solely as long as we continue to believe and fight for them. So in that sense they do not truly exist in the real world and only exist within our minds.
FunkyZombie
10-08-2009, 01:25 AM
I certainly can't hold 2+2, or smell it or feel it or whatever.
Hell, why should I believe anything you type? Some conscious mortal ape wrote it :p
One moment...
This statement here is ridiculous as you can indeed hold 2+2=4 in your hand.
If you hold 2 acorns in your hand then pick up two more acorns with the same hand you just held the concept of 2+2=4.
Mr. Dazed and Confused
10-08-2009, 01:38 AM
One moment...
This statement here is ridiculous as you can indeed hold 2+2=4 in your hand.
If you hold 2 acorns in your hand then pick up two more acorns with the same hand you just held the concept of 2+2=4.
haha
I object to the concept of inalienable rights in general because I see no evidence to support their existence.
I see you missed my point with the 2+2 example. I can reject 2+2=4. The universe doesn't explode, I'll just be wrong. There are many Christians and Muslims in the world that reject the scientific method. They haven't violated the laws of physics when they do so, they've just rejected the methodology. When anybody claims that god exists, the dude doesn't just pop into the universe. The person making the claiming has merely failed to provide a valid claim that conforms to logic and is accurate. Now, there's another step.
When you object you're saying that you have a preference for right and wrong. Would you extend that preference to the rest of humanity as a universal preference, or would you say that everybody should just choose whatever the fuck they want? If you think there is a universal preference for...say... the scientific method, then you're not as much of a relativist as you think...
I'd say relativists are stuck in the endless loop of denying the existence of right or wrong while still behaving according to what they think is right or wrong. Here you have some choices "All behavior is right, All behavior is wrong, No behavior can be valued as right or wrong, or some behavior is right and some behavior is wrong(with some being neutral)." The first statement is untrue. The second statement is self-defeating. The third statement(nihilism) can't assert itself. That leaves us with number 4.
Bear in mind that I'm not selling you moral commandments here. Sexual preference isn't a question of right and wrong, nor is aborting a fetus.
Property rights, however, are a universal preference. Have you found a consistent theory yet that repudiates your right to your own body?
At best a tyrant's thugs will laugh in your face if you tell them they can't seize your property because you have an inalienable right to it.
Sure kunta kinte can shank me and violate my rights if I fail to adequately defend myself, but that doesn't negate them. I'm curious though. By what standards do you determine that what the tyrant's thugs are doing is wrong? It's all subjective right? If the tyrant tells one of his goons to rape you and he thinks it's right, do just bend over and spread your cheeks?
Ill be back in a week to respond.
^ All that meandering bullshit and still no proof of inalienable rights? Awesome.
Edit: Oh, and moral relativism is not synonymous with denying the existence of right and wrong. A moral relativist can acknowledge that some things are right and wrong within a specific context. So he can hold the position that certain things are right and wrong within a specific context, and even defend his position to the death; he would just acknowledge that given a lack of any truly universally objective reference point, someone else could easily defend a completely different set if rights and wrongs just as easily.
^ All that meandering bullshit and still no proof of inalienable rights? Awesome.
Edit: Oh, and moral relativism is not synonymous with denying the existence of right and wrong. A moral relativist can acknowledge that some things are right and wrong within a specific context. So he can hold the position that certain things are right and wrong within a specific context, and even defend his position to the death; he would just acknowledge that given a lack of any truly universally objective reference point, someone else could easily defend a completely different set if rights and wrongs just as easily.
Here's one: Rape is good.
Do it.
Here's one: Rape is good.
Do it.
1. "Could be", not "must be". "Mayonnaise jars could be used to preserve alien testicles". Get it? "Some things" not "All things". Get it?
2. Your poor reading comprehension aside, I already did just what you asked in this thread (a thread you abandoned)....
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?p=995152#post995152
P.S. Can I take your continued avoidance of any proof of your claims as an admittance that you can't substantiate them?
1. "Could be", not "must be". "Mayonnaise jars could be used to preserve alien testicles". Get it? "Some things" not "All things". Get it?
2. Your poor reading comprehension aside, I already did just what you asked in this thread (a thread you abandoned)....
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?p=995152#post995152
P.S. Can I take your continued avoidance of any proof of your claims as an admittance that you can't substantiate them?
No. The "within a specific context" is just a cop-out. It's like when cultural anthropologists refuse to classify aboriginal child sexual abuse as "wrong" because it's OK for the aboriginals despite objective proof by Lloyd deMause that it is harmful to children. If you have the audacity to agree with a statement like "for the majority of history, most humans have believed in the existence of god/gods/godesses and therefore have been wrong" then you acknowledge the need for a universal reference point. You just refuse to apply it to behavior(except you do, except for "within specific contexts" :rolleyes:). Your constant "it's not right or wrong it's all arbitrary" and "right or wrong within a specific context" and your refusal to provide any moral justification for socialism all go hand-in-hand to create that "spineless liberal" that's so gloriously mocked. :D Your "rape as punishment for rape" was already tried by Hammurabi and we've evolved past using 'eye for an eye' and your "utilitarian scenario" is vague. Save for some imaginary scenario where aliens will destroy planet earth if we don't allow them to fuck Angelina Jolie without her consent could you be more specific? Remember it's not rape if the rapees consent for some utilitarian reason.
Flex Rigid
10-11-2009, 06:39 PM
"Within specific contexts" is a logical outcome of the theory, not really a cop-out, whatever you mean by cop-out.
A few posts up, you suggested that FunkyZombie should have given you proof of the nonexistence of something.
Your arguments are all over the place and probably made sifficult to follow on purpose.
And still no proof of these innate property rights.
No. The "within a specific context" is just a cop-out. It's like when cultural anthropologists refuse to classify aboriginal child sexual abuse as "wrong" because it's OK for the aboriginals despite objective proof by Lloyd deMause that it is harmful to children. If you have the audacity to agree with a statement like "for the majority of history, most humans have believed in the existence of god/gods/godesses and therefore have been wrong" then you acknowledge the need for a universal reference point. You just refuse to apply it to behavior(except you do, except for "within specific contexts" :rolleyes:). Your constant "it's not right or wrong it's all arbitrary" and "right or wrong within a specific context" and your refusal to provide any moral justification for socialism all go hand-in-hand to create that "spineless liberal" that's so gloriously mocked. :D Your "rape as punishment for rape" was already tried by Hammurabi and we've evolved past using 'eye for an eye' and your "utilitarian scenario" is vague. Save for some imaginary scenario where aliens will destroy planet earth if we don't allow them to fuck Angelina Jolie without her consent could you be more specific? Remember it's not rape if the rapees consent for some utilitarian reason.
^ All that meandering bullshit and still no proof of inalienable rights? Awesome.
Sorry, but there is no "cop-out" here. That's the inevitable consequence of you failing miserably time and time again to prove your position ins objective. Without the reference point - which you lack until you prove your claims - the result is non-objectivity.
So no, there is no cop-out, just you throwing a hissy fit since your request was answered and answered easily. Your replies to it are idiotic at best:
a. The fact that capital punishment (on a national level) and war (on an international level) exist to this day is proof positive that "an eye for an eye" is a sentiment that is alive and well till this day. Certainly more alive than your "Non-Aggression Principle" that's for sure.
b. The utilitarian scenario could be anything. Being specific is unnecessary as long as you admit that it's possible since the likelihood of it happening is irrelevant in determining objectivity in this case. You don't retain objectivity; not even if the scenario that refutes it is not that likely. But just to appease your silly whining: a scenario where forcible impregnation is deemed necessary for the survival of the species.
As you can see above, I'm not the only one that thinks your arguments are getting more and more pathetic. So please, stop wasting people's times and either prove the existence of inalienable rights or admit that you cannot.
Jesus of Nazareth
10-11-2009, 07:38 PM
If I paid for it or acquired it through any means it is mine and you can feel free to shut the fuck up about it.
not me
10-11-2009, 07:43 PM
Fuck Joseph Prodhoun or whoever the fuck he is. My shit is mine, come and take it.
There is no meandering bullshit. I've argued well up the level that you guys have provided arguments, and will continue to keep gradually going up in notches. You want the reference point, this is informal discourse. I've given you a link to UPB in the past. As such, that's a textbook explanation and beyond the scope of time and effort I'm willing to put into this thread. I'm sure someone of your stature can relate to that sentiment. You're a troll who in 6 years makes no intention to teach anyone anything and instead just jumps into threads to correct semantic minutia. If that's your preference that's fine, but I have no intention of teaching you so much as I like to poke you in threads to see if you'll give me anything worth learning, as you no doubt have noticed. I like to take capitalism to ideological extremes so I can find a common ground for my day-to-day life. As such, secular ethics is something I find more consistent than any socialist dogma.
a. The fact that capital punishment (on a national level) and war (on an international level) exist to this day is proof positive that "an eye for an eye" is a sentiment that is alive and well till this day. Certainly more alive than your "Non-Aggression Principle" that's for sure.
You're appealing to the masses. Religion is alive and well too. It's not a justification, it's an observation. As such "eye for an eye" =/= "rape as punishment for rape". Even if I use your appeal to the masses, other than a few sadistic morons that think that what goes on in US prisons is humane and acceptable rape isn't valid as punishment for rape.
b. The utilitarian scenario could be anything. Being specific is unnecessary as long as you admit that it's possible since the likelihood of it happening is irrelevant in determining objectivity in this case. You don't retain objectivity; not even if the scenario that refutes it is not that likely. But just to appease your silly whining: a scenario where forcible impregnation is deemed necessary for the survival of the species.
This is taking an approach that deems utilitarianism as the ethical standard.That's a marxist thing. Deontological ethics wouldn't use the continuation of the human species as justification for rape, not even in this scenario. For one, if mankind were so retarded as to reduce itself down to X amount of men and 1 single female, and for one reason or another she didn't want to consent to continuing a species that destroyed itself and wants to perpetuate itself, then so be it. I was using my "save for " scenario to see if I understood you correctly, not to agree with it.
As you can see above, I'm not the only one that thinks your arguments are getting more and more pathetic. So please, stop wasting people's times and either prove the existence of inalienable rights or admit that you cannot.
I will not. I'm not your teacher. I don't troll the religion forum proving there is no god and I don't intend to rationalize inalienable rights. I dont even like to use the word 'rights' so much because it connotes dependence on a state to recognize it. I adhere to the idea of inviolable freedoms but again, that's another topic. I have, however, held my own against relativists yet again. You guys are easy because "within a certain context" is the same thing as saying you can change the goal post whenever you want like the pigs in Animal Farm. Go suck on marx's left nut(remember when you told me to suck john galt's glistening gold nutsack?).
make what you will with that meandering bullshit.
PS I'm ditching this forum(by that I mean IC and all of zoklet) in the upcoming days and am recommending Reality Apologist take my place.
There is no meandering bullshit. I've argued well up the level that you guys have provided arguments, and will continue to keep gradually going up in notches. You want the reference point, this is informal discourse. I've given you a link to UPB in the past. As such, that's a textbook explanation and beyond the scope of time and effort I'm willing to put into this thread. I'm sure someone of your stature can relate to that sentiment.
Yes, there is meandering bullshit. You've spent this entire thread claiming you have found objective ethics, claiming that rights are inalienable and objective and have done absolutely nothing to substantiate any of that. This isn't a case of us asking too much of you, this is a case of us asking the bare minimum: please substantiate your claim.
You're a troll who in 6 years makes no intention to teach anyone anything and instead just jumps into threads to correct semantic minutia. If that's your preference that's fine, but I have no intention of teaching you so much as I like to poke you in threads to see if you'll give me anything worth learning, as you no doubt have noticed.
Oh please Zay, spare me the melodramatic commentary. I'm not a troll and to claim that in the 6+ years I've been posting I haven't made any attempt to teach people is utterly ridiculous (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=69447). You might not like the manner I do so, but I do. Pointing out the contradiction (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=1071308&postcount=138) in your arguments, whether you like it or not, is a lesson. You might not take it as a lesson, but it is one.
I like to take capitalism to ideological extremes so I can find a common ground for my day-to-day life. As such, secular ethics is something I find more consistent than any socialist dogma.
Socialist dogma isn't incompatible with secular ethics. I think you'll find a lot of socialists are secular...
You're appealing to the masses. Religion is alive and well too. It's not a justification, it's an observation. As such "eye for an eye" =/= "rape as punishment for rape". Even if I use your appeal to the masses, other than a few sadistic morons that think that what goes on in US prisons is humane and acceptable rape isn't valid as punishment for rape.
No, you are appealing to the masses. It was you who essentially said "Eye for an eye isn't popular any more" (by stating "we've evolved past using 'eye for an eye'" which is the equivalent of saying "we don't do that anymore"). I merely pointed out how that is false: we have not evolved past an eye for an eye since that's alive and well. So your own argument fails twice, and you just did an awesome job of explaining why:
a. It was an appeal to the lack of masses.
b. Even if we fall for the logical fallacy, it's blatantly wrong because there isn't a lack of masses that support an eye for an eye. We have capital punishment and war(retaliation) as clear cut evidence of national and international examples of an eye for an eye philosophy in practice.
This is taking an approach that deems utilitarianism as the ethical standard.That's a marxist thing. Deontological ethics wouldn't use the continuation of the human species as justification for rape, not even in this scenario. For one, if mankind were so retarded as to reduce itself down to X amount of men and 1 single female, and for one reason or another she didn't want to consent to continuing a species that destroyed itself and wants to perpetuate itself, then so be it. I was using my "save for " scenario to see if I understood you correctly, not to agree with it.
1. Not necessarily a Marxist thing.
2. You asked me to show an instance where rape can be justified and I did. Obviously it cannot be justified if you deliberately build a system where rape cannot be justified (A strictly deontological outlook). Just like I can't color the house red if you don't give me red crayons. You have to now show how deontological evaluation is the only correct way to evaluate ethical conundrums or your point is moot/circular.
I will not. I'm not your teacher. I don't troll the religion forum proving there is no god and I don't intend to rationalize inalienable rights. I dont even like to use the word 'rights' so much because it connotes dependence on a state to recognize it. I adhere to the idea of inviolable freedoms but again, that's another topic. I have, however, held my own against relativists yet again. You guys are easy because "within a certain context" is the same thing as saying you can change the goal post whenever you want like the pigs in Animal Farm. Go suck on marx's left nut(remember when you told me to suck john galt's glistening gold nutsack?).
make what you will with that meandering bullshit.
Will not? You already did the second one!
You must be suffering from severe delusions if you think this exchange shows you've "held your own against the relativists". You did nothing but assert the truth of your claims and fail miserably time and time again to substantiate them! How in the world is that "holding your own"? Please tell me.
And no, it does not mean we change the goal post whenever we want. As I already explained to you, a moral relativist can maintain/defend their ethical position to the death. He just acknowledges that he cannot show an objective reference point and thus they are relative. They are, in practice, exactly like you since you apparently can't show any objective reference point either. The difference is they admit it, while you cover your ears and deny it.
FunkyZombie
10-15-2009, 05:40 AM
I see you missed my point with the 2+2 example. I can reject 2+2=4. The universe doesn't explode, I'll just be wrong. There are many Christians and Muslims in the world that reject the scientific method. They haven't violated the laws of physics when they do so, they've just rejected the methodology. When anybody claims that god exists, the dude doesn't just pop into the universe. The person making the claiming has merely failed to provide a valid claim that conforms to logic and is accurate. Now, there's another step.
When you object you're saying that you have a preference for right and wrong. Would you extend that preference to the rest of humanity as a universal preference, or would you say that everybody should just choose whatever the fuck they want? If you think there is a universal preference for...say... the scientific method, then you're not as much of a relativist as you think...
I'd say relativists are stuck in the endless loop of denying the existence of right or wrong while still behaving according to what they think is right or wrong. Here you have some choices "All behavior is right, All behavior is wrong, No behavior can be valued as right or wrong, or some behavior is right and some behavior is wrong(with some being neutral)." The first statement is untrue. The second statement is self-defeating. The third statement(nihilism) can't assert itself. That leaves us with number 4.
Bear in mind that I'm not selling you moral commandments here. Sexual preference isn't a question of right and wrong, nor is aborting a fetus.
Property rights, however, are a universal preference. Have you found a consistent theory yet that repudiates your right to your own body?
Sure kunta kinte can shank me and violate my rights if I fail to adequately defend myself, but that doesn't negate them. I'm curious though. By what standards do you determine that what the tyrant's thugs are doing is wrong? It's all subjective right? If the tyrant tells one of his goons to rape you and he thinks it's right, do just bend over and spread your cheeks?
Ill be back in a week to respond.
I'm sorry for the delay in my reply to be honest I've been lazy and on top of that I've been rather busy with work and other responsibilities lately.
I had typed up a lengthy reply but Zoklet ate it and frankly I'm too tired to type all that blather up again.
2+2=4 isn't comparable because 2+2=4 is an objective concept, property rights on the other hand are subjective. I can't force my will on the universe and make 2+2=5 however I could hypothetically force my will on you and take your property and unless you have the means to seize the property back despite all your assertions to the contrary the property will remain mine. I have no more obligation to return your property than the United States has to return land illegally seized from the various native American nations.
To put it succinctly in a subjective reality the only perspective that matters is your own. We are under no obligation to comply with force regardless of whether those using force believe their actions to be right. Those using force on the other hand are under no obligation not to force us to comply.
What's really telling of how awful his argument is, is that he doesn't even see himself under any obligation to comply either! He already admitted to violating his own ethics by rewarding those who've broken the non-aggression principle (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=67001&page=2) (the principle he bases his entire ethics on). His excuse? That it wouldn't be practical to apply it there. Not only does he pick and choose when to apply it the NAP willy-nilly, but his justification is strictly utilitarian and not deontological as he was requiring above (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=1138751&postcount=27)!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.